Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Why We Need Skyscrapers

four1298

four1298

pro-immigration activist
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 27, 2023
Posts
1,983
Online time
2d 12h
This is a sequel to the thread I posted where I said we should build skyscrapers so we can house millions of new people that will be born because of natalist policies. At first, this will be environment-friendly because we will not build as much housing and other buildings on nature. I think nature is good for the environment because plants convert CO2 to oxygen. In the long run, however, we might need to destroy one-story houses and any other non-skyscrapers to replace them with skyscrapers. Skyscrapers can house rooms and stores, and other things people need. We'll probably need to build on nature, but global warming is probably a hoax.


Now, the question is how many people can the Earth house? According to Google, "The most population-dense city in the world is Manila, Philippines, with a population density of 119,600 people per square mile (46,178 per square kilometer), according to worldpopulationreview.com." According to Google, "The total area of the United States is approximately 3,809,525 square miles." Those two numbers multiplied is: 102,918,127,400. That's 102 billion. The US can house 102 billion people.


But I'm not advocating to be like Manila. I'm advocating for skyscrapers. In that thread, I said we should build Burj Khalifa skyscrapers, but now I realize that's not right. It has 163 stories and only 1204 rooms. Divide those two is 7 rooms per story. That's not much. We need to build a different sort of skyscraper. Google says, "The skyscraper with the most rooms is The Palazzo in Las Vegas, which has 3,068 rooms." I can't find out how much floor area it has so I'm going to do the math with another skyscraper. Google says, "The skyscraper with the most rooms is Ciel in Dubai. It is set to be the world's tallest hotel and boasts 1,004 rooms, including 147 suites, across 82 floors Newsweek reports." According to CNN, "For the project, Jan was tasked with designing the skyscraper on a triangular plot of land at Dubai Marina with an area of just 2,500 square meters – small for a building of that height." 3,809,525 square miles divided by 2,500 square meters is 3,946,649,780. That means we can build almost 4 billion Ciel skyscrapers. That's not exact since there should be sidewalks, roads, farmland, and other things. Multiply that by 1,004 is about 3,946,649,780,000. That's 3.9 trillion. The US can house 3.9 trillion people and possibly more if skyscrapers are made even bigger and with more rooms. And people can of course share rooms.


I'm not going to do the math for the whole Earth. It's going to possibly be more than quadrillions. The US is just one of hundreds of countries. There's 4.886 quadrillion square feet of land in the USA. I'm too lazy to do it.


Now the question is how long will it take 4 billion skyscrapers? I don't know, but a webpage says it took about 9 years to build Ciel. Perhaps it can be done quickly because a article is titled, "Chinese construction firm erects 57-storey skyscraper in 19 days." I'm not an expert.
 
There is enough land on this planet for everyone to have a home without the need for high-rise buildings, just need to remove south asians, africans.
 
climate hoax is not our problem.
Nor is overpopulation a problem. It might be in china, manila and other 3rd world bullshit, but not places like Europe. There are places in norway with 3km inbetween hosues in the hills.
Likewise, its mutually exclusive to claim overpopulation while advocating for mass migration in the same nation. Its a clever way to disguise ethnic cleansing.

cleaner living is the problem for china, india and SEA to solve
White western countries are eco friendly enough and have waste management enough to keep living like this forever.
Mangroves in australia alone absorb and recycle all the co2 the country produces. Doesnt take into consideration all other kinds of trees and plants.
if we go any greener, like a malaysian farmer, the world can sustain 150 billion ppl

it never ceases to amaze me how 500 million Whites scattared across 3 continents get tricked into babysitting and making up for subhumans that amount to 5 billion total who live like disgusting rats with no concern for anything.
for example, india and SEA together amount for 3/4ths of global water pollution
 
climate hoax is not our problem.
Nor is overpopulation a problem. It might be in china, manila and other 3rd world bullshit, but not places like Europe. There are places in norway with 3km inbetween hosues in the hills.
Likewise, its mutually exclusive to claim overpopulation while advocating for mass migration in the same nation. Its a clever way to disguise ethnic cleansing.

cleaner living is the problem for china, india and SEA to solve
White western countries are eco friendly enough and have waste management enough to keep living like this forever.
Mangroves in australia alone absorb and recycle all the co2 the country produces. Doesnt take into consideration all other kinds of trees and plants.
if we go any greener, like a malaysian farmer, the world can sustain 150 billion ppl

it never ceases to amaze me how 500 million Whites scattared across 3 continents get tricked into babysitting and making up for subhumans that amount to 5 billion total who live like disgusting rats with no concern for anything.
for example, india and SEA together amount for 3/4ths of global water pollution
Uk? Britain is a dumpster lol
 
Uk? Britain is a dumpster lol
britain is trash in the big cities like london but ultimately too small on a global scale to have major impact.
And hint, why do u think its bad in the big cities. They are like 60% nigger and sandnigger
 
According to National Geographic, "Together, the continents add up to about 148 million square kilometers (57 million square miles) of land." That's 148,000,000,000,000 square meters. The skyscraper Ciel is 2,500 square meters floor area. Dividing those two numbers is 59,200,000,000. That means the world can have 59.2 billion skyscrapers. It's actually less than that because there should be roads and farms, which makes me realize a flaw in my original post. If there's hundreds of billions people we're going to need much, much more farms than now. We can round it down and say there can be at least 20 billion skyscrapers. Ciel has 1004 rooms. Those two numbers multiplied is 20,080 billion or 20 trillion. That's much less than what I expected.
 
As for farming, there is something known as "vertical farming:"


[Dickson] Despommier and his students came up with a design of a skyscraper farm that could feed 50,000 people. Although the design has not yet been built, it successfully popularized the idea of vertical farming.
 
According to this webpage it takes one acre of farmland to feed a person. Perhaps it's less with a vegan diet and also less if we ban vegetables. We should ban vegetables because they take up space despite providing few calories. What matters is calories so people don't starve.

148 million square kilometers(the area of land on Earth) divided by 43560 square feet is 36,570,000,000 or 36.57 billion. So there's enough land to feed 36.57 billion, but not all land is arable and of course this means nobody can live on land.

Let's say we spend half the land on farmland. That means we can have 59.2 billion/2 times 1004 rooms for people(and we can actually have more if we pack people like sardines). That's 29.7 trillion people. Half of 36.57 billion is not 29.7 trillion. For sure we can house 36.57 billion. And my math be wrong because 36.57 billion seems like a low number. Of course the number of people the Earth can sustain is less than 36.57 billion because some land has to be used for skyscrapers, Internet, and clothing factories, and other things I can't think of. We should be able to house and feed least 18 billion people. I'm not going to do the exact math on how many people we can house.

With vertical farming we can have vegetables though. That's the Wikipedia picture of vertical farming. I wonder if you can farm grains with vertical farming. I haven't really researched vertical farming though. Vegetables are a waste of farmland.

Now what if we pack people like sardines? We can house twelve people in one suite it seems 59.2 billion times 1004 times 12 is 7.13 x 10^14 or 713,000,000,000,000. That means the world can house 713 trillion people. But we don't seem to have enough farmland for that.

My math on the farmland is probably wrong since it seems so low. At a current 8 billion population we're not that far from a maximum of 18 billion. If we only use a half an acre there's enough space to farm for 73 billion people. Of course that's excluding the land for skyscrapers.

 
The quantity of humanoids should be massively decreased and the quality increased.
 
It seems corn is the pro-natalist choice of crop. By growing it we can feed more people. Rice is good too.

Premiercropblog caloriesperacreperharvest
 
36.57 billion acres times .80 is 29.256 billion acres to feed that many people. We can feed twice that many if we use half an acre to feed each person. That's 58 billion. That means we can multiply our population by seven.

59.2 billion skyscrapers times 1004 rooms times .05 is 2971.84 billion or 2.97 trillion rooms. We don't need that many rooms.

15% is roads.

My math may be wrong.

I wonder how much fish we can eat though. We can eat from farms and from the sea. According to this Wikipedia page, Maldives has the highest fish consumption per capita.

 
So that i can reach the moon
 

In the United States, food waste is estimated at between 30-40 percent of the food supply

The US population is 340.1 million. 340.1 million times .30 is 102.03. The math may not be accurate, but perhaps we have enough food to feed 102.3 million more people.

There's 170.05 million women. 340.1 plus 102.3 divided by 170.05 is 2.6. This means we can raise the birth rate to 2.6(or maybe 2.7 since replacement is 2.1 not 2.0 because some people don't survive or something) temporarily, but it'd need to go back down to 2.1 after.

I don't know what percentage of the food wasted is edible though.
 
Osama hands typed this
 
Should grass should be banned? I realized grass has soil. By planting crops instead of grass, we can feed a little more people. We can possibly plant corn or fruit though fruit trees take a long time to grow I assume. This is more of a detail to the main idea since individuals don't have much grass land.
 

Similar threads

FastBlast
Replies
1
Views
308
FastBlast
FastBlast
Hateful Mulattocel
SuicideFuel Modernism
Replies
11
Views
392
Hateful Mulattocel
Hateful Mulattocel
Krad
Replies
3
Views
406
nihilum
nihilum
OLD_HAG_MANCER
Replies
5
Views
541
nihilum
nihilum

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top